Originally posted by quanchi112
We accept certain unknowns to have a fictional debate because we don't have numbers to quantify every single attack.
Glad we agree. The thing is, we have numbers to quantify most things in SW, and when applying them to the First Order, we scale up. With ST, we dor have them for Kelvin timeline, but we do for Prime timeline. Since we know they both use phasers, we can assume that their damage output is similar, but if it's true that the Kelvin ships are more advanced (which I don't buy), then we scale up. I understand that the technology is not identical, but it's still similar, and we can draw reasonable conclusions from it.
What's even more telling is we know because we are intelligent, rational human beings that the artists, writers, storytellers in general don't give one single **** about the scene other than making it gloriously captivating. They do not have people crunching the goddamn numbers in their fictional universe because that's boring and unnecessary.
Thanks for repeating what I've been saying throughout this debate 👆
What the **** do you mean we have no way to tell how it would react to SW shields ? It's either powerful enough to break through or it will accrue damage until it is breached.
What I'm saying is, for all we know phasers are able to pass through SW shields without being effected. I say this because we don't know how the energy and matter that composes a phaser will react to the energy and matter that makes up a SW shield. We assume that they will react to eachother the same way they work in their respective universe's for the sake of argument.
We can make reasonable assumptions based off the showings from each set of films to compare. We know Trek ships minus shields can withstand the impact of high speeds into a mountain. That's one showing illustrating the durability of a Star Trek ship minus a shield.
For situations like this, I agree. When I say the movies are unreliable, I should specify that it more relates to something where the screenwriters could have taken extensive creative liberties. An example of creative liberties taken in Into Darkness: "In Cinefex 134, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett remarked that "The Vengeance is about two-and-a-half times the size of the Enterprise." He added: "It was approximately 4,500 feet long, but we sometimes cheated that for dramatic needs, as we did with the Enterprise." This converts to 1,400 meters. According to QMx, their 36-inch replica was developed at a scale of 1:1600, which works out to roughly 4,800 feet (1,500 meters). Finally, digital set designer Tex Kadonaga had created a size chart for the film, showing the vessel at 4,790 feet (1,460 meters) and the Enterprise at half that length."
My point here is we can't always trust what we see on screen because it isn't always accurate. This is why we need concrete data uninfluenced by visual creative liberties.
We can then come to the conclusions the shields are greater than that since they protect these ships.
Arguably. We don't have any data to support this. Since we know kinetic objects can pass through shields, and we can't quantify all the variables without spending extensive time calculating the variables, we can't exactly use this as a reliable point to draw conclusions from.
We see how easily Trek super shields maul the federations Enterprise with their weapons.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
The data doesn't sync up with the films and we as intelligent people should have already reached this conclusion.
Granted, they are not identical. However, they are still phasers and photon torpedoes, any we, as intelligent people, can assume that they are still similar in constitution. However, our data is limited, so this is not the most effective way of going about this. The alternate ways, however, are either ineffective in answering our questions accurately or are overly time consuming.
You want to forego the visual and compelling evidence and instead focus on irrelevant data entires for a series completely outside of the Kelvin timeline and you astonishly think this is the best way.
I forego the visuals because they are intended to look good, and as such are less reliable because of the creative liberties taken.
For all of you bastards TL;DR
Tonde believes [B]technical guides outside for the DS9 are more relevant than the visual evidence from the Kelvin trilogy.
When visuals are exaggerated and unreliable and we have no written data to go off of, we must turn to things from the Prime timeline, which is still ST.
You do not have the showings from the films to make the case the Trek ships can't damage the Star Destroyers since much smaller and much less powerful ships have brought down said star destroyers.
If you want a debate based off the movie showings, you're in the wrong thread.
You realize that Slave I has more destructive output than Enterprise D, right? And the feat that I assume you're referring to is the Executor being taken down, right? If so, you should already know that we've explained this to you.
If I back this up will you publically concede to being my inferior.
Then by all means, please do.
We go deeper by examining the direct evidence. You'd rather ignore the actual movie showings and facts in favor of guides written by people not responsible for the movie itself.
And when the movie showings are not reliable, we use other sources. It's laughable to think that Lucasfilm and whoever owns ST now didn't regulate what could be put on the sourcebooks.
No, you're ignoring the actual evidence in favor of third party numbers.
Funny
Anyone who says ignore what we see but let's take a look at this guide is wrong. Yes, we can. We know for a fact that the Kelvin timeline is different than the prime timeline so using anything for that reality is inherently wrong.
They both use the same technology, it is simply animated differently.
So much reaching on your end and you've already laid your biased cards out on the table. Your conclusion won't change and despite the possibility I am right your conclusion didn't change. You're a fanatic and the evidence doesn't matter. Didn't matter. Never mattered.
My conclusion remains the same because you have yet to provide compelling evidence to persuade me otherwise.
Originally posted by TondemonaiKelvin ships are more durable and larger so it is true. The narada made the entire timeline superior. Love that Nero.
Glad we agree. The thing is, we have numbers to quantify most things in SW, and when applying them to the First Order, we scale up. With ST, we dor have them for Kelvin timeline, but we do for Prime timeline. Since we know they both use phasers, we can assume that their damage output is similar, but if it's true that the Kelvin ships are more advanced (which I don't buy), then we scale up. I understand that the technology is not identical, but it's still similar, and we can draw reasonable conclusions from it.
I agree.
Thanks for repeating what I've been saying throughout this debate 👆What I'm saying is, for all we know phasers are able to pass through SW shields without being effected. I say this because we don't know how the energy and matter that composes a phaser will react to the energy and matter that makes up a SW shield. We assume that they will react to eachother the same way they work in their respective universe's for the sake of argument.
[/B]
For situations like this, I agree. When I say the movies are unreliable, I should specify that it more relates to something where the screenwriters could have taken extensive creative liberties. An example of creative liberties taken in Into Darkness: "In Cinefex 134, visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett remarked that "The Vengeance is about two-and-a-half times the size of the Enterprise." He added: "It was approximately 4,500 feet long, but we sometimes cheated that for dramatic needs, as we did with the Enterprise." This converts to 1,400 meters. According to QMx, their 36-inch replica was developed at a scale of 1:1600, which works out to roughly 4,800 feet (1,500 meters). Finally, digital set designer Tex Kadonaga had created a size chart for the film, showing the vessel at 4,790 feet (1,460 meters) and the Enterprise at half that length."
[/B]
I agree.
Depends on if the showings sync up to match the data. Take for instance in the new film we see the x wing firing on Stormtroopers and it wasn't that powerful considering the damage done to the trooper. If you find some kind of ridiculously powerful mathematical number to address the power of their guns it doesn't add up.
My point here is we can't always trust what we see on screen because it isn't always accurate. This is why we need concrete data uninfluenced by visual creative liberties.
[/B]
In these instances we'd see who best supported their views since we can't come to an agreement like in any debate,
Arguably. We don't have any data to support this. Since we know kinetic objects can pass through shields, and we can't quantify all the variables without spending extensive time calculating the variables, we can't exactly use this as a reliable point to draw conclusions from.
[/B]
Typo. Super ships maul the enterprise with their weapons despite the enterprise's shields up.
I don't understand what you're saying here.[/B]
Granted, they are not identical. However, they are still phasers and photon torpedoes, any we, as intelligent people, can assume that they are still similar in constitution. However, our data is limited, so this is not the most effective way of going about this. The alternate ways, however, are either ineffective in answering our questions accurately or are overly time consuming.
[/B]
We can't just outright ignore the visual aspect IMO. It doesn't have to be the entire picture but it should still factor into the equation.
I forego the visuals because they are intended to look good, and as such are less reliable because of the creative liberties taken.For all of you bastards TL;DR
[/B]
Why ? We have enough information from the Kelvin timeline to reach a conclusion.When visuals are exaggerated and unreliable and we have no written data to go off of, we must turn to things from the Prime timeline, which is still ST.
If you want a debate based off the movie showings, you're in the wrong thread.
You realize that Slave I has more destructive output than Enterprise D, right? And the feat that I assume you're referring to is the Executor being taken down, right? If so, you should already know that we've explained this to you.
[/B]
No, I am not.
I find that highly suspect but I don't care about the enterprise D one bit. What about it being taken down has been explained to me ?
Then by all means, please do.And when the movie showings are not reliable, we use other sources. It's laughable to think that Lucasfilm and whoever owns ST now didn't regulate what could be put on the sourcebooks.
Funny
[/B]
As long as it jives with the films I don't see a problem. Only if that happens though.
Proof ? We see the ships are bigger and more durable so what makes you say the tech is same across the board since it's an alternate reality.
They both use the same technology, it is simply animated differently.My conclusion remains the same because you have yet to provide compelling evidence to persuade me otherwise. [/B]
You're talking about the Ot vs the Kelvin timeline, right ?
Tell you what why don't you accept this battlezone. It's a one on one judged debate with me repping the Kelvin vs the Ot era with judges. Let's see who makes the more compelling case. We can set the date for when you have time over winter break since you're bogged down by college.
Sound good ?
I also keep throwing up challengers because Ellimist doesn't really seem to care about repping the Ot era. I need someone to fully believe in their position and that their side wins. Ellimist was I wrong to think you don't care about this debate ? Do you look forward to this in December ? Or would you rather me try to find someone else in the meantime.